4 ms·

>>(large unused garden + lawn + double parking spot + garage) I don't know about you, but I actively use and enjoy every one of those things. Perhaps you enjo

by toss1 5y ago

>>(large unused garden + lawn + double parking spot + garage) I don't know about you, but I actively use and enjoy every one of those things. Perhaps you enjoy apartment living and consider anything not active indoors a waste. If so, good for you, I wouldn't want to impose a garden or a parking spot on you. By the same token, calling these out as if they could possibly not be useful, simply because you do not think them useful, is at best, a fallacy.

KptMarchewa 5y ago
You can enjoy active outdoors without wasting space on concrete car desert. It's called "parks".
- toss1 5y ago
  Lawns and gardens are not concrete (at least not mine). Also,kind of hard to grow your lunch greens in a public park. Not much solitude there either. Nothing says that you need to even need to have concrete/asphalt driveways & parking; gravel drives can be quite nice.
magikaram 5y ago
It's been well documented that the large set back front yards and loads of anti-pedestrian designed neighborhoods and towns have largely been the cause for issues relating to poor public transportation, heat island effects, and less affordable housing. You can have nice gardens, double parking spots & a garage without the same designed towns and neighborhoods. Most often is done by limiting street parking, narrower streets, and using the rear-entrance drives and lots as done in many cities. Those designs also enable more pedestrian friendliness vs. the suburban sprawl that is effectively carpeting the U.S. and Canada since the 40's.
- toss1 5y ago
  >>heat island effects are not caused by yards and vegetation, but by expanses of dark asphalt and dark roofs. More vegetation vs roads/lots, and roof area is the cure, not the cause. >>Most often is done by limiting street parking, narrower streets, and using the rear-entrance drives and lots as done in many cities. YES, limiting on-street parking is huge.
  - citrin_ru 5y ago
    If there are trees on both sides of a residential street it will not be a heat island even with on-street parking. But it seems to me many Americans don’t like trees and prefer open spaces (which inevitably work as heat islands).
ricardobeat 5y ago
I didn’t say they are useless or not enjoyable (except for front lawns which are, in fact, useless). And no I don’t live in an apartment, or would like to, though some people do. It’s just not really necessary for every single house to have these amenities. You can have parks, public parking, and a decent sized backyard in a townhouse / attached buildings. The space gained can then be used to sustain actual life in the neighborhood such as stores, restaurants, schools, libraries and small businesses. Once you have this, you don’t need two cars, or to drive everywhere, you don’t need a large private garden to enjoy the outdoors. Of course I’d love to live in a huge house surrounded by green. But it’s not a sustainable model for urban development.
neilparikh 5y ago
> I don't know about you, but I actively use and enjoy every one of those things. That's fine, as long as you pay the costs associated with those things. However, in most cities suburbs are revenue negative, and subsidized by the dense downtown areas (that don't have these). > I wouldn't want to impose a garden or a parking spot on you. The entire problem is that this is exactly what is done though. Zoning forces a very specific type of housing in most of the city (single family house with large lot size, garage, driveway and backyard), even for those who would be okay with or prefer something else.
- toss1 5y ago
  >>Zoning forces a very specific type of housing in most of the city (single family house with large lot size, garage, driveway and backyard), even for those who would be okay with or prefer something else. Are you conflating city and suburbs here? While this is obviously dependent on each city/town which has their own zoning rules, most of the locales with which I'm familiar have quite the dense-pack throughout the city, and the suburbs are out in separate towns. >>However, in most cities suburbs are revenue negative. Again, if the suburbs are separate towns, I don't see how this affects the city budget. If the suburbs are within the city and on the same budget, I'd look at the balance of costs and revenue, and if a particular zoning district is substantially more costly, i.e., being subsidized, then it seems a rate adjustment for that zoning type would be in order... As it is, for where I live, the town is essentially all rural/residential, with 2-acre minimums (some exceptions), 35mi from the major city, and I can say that yes, we REALLY do pay for those associated things - one of the highest tax rates in the state, and increased ~50% since moving in 15 years ago. Yes, we occasionally grumble, but I am much more happy to pay for the zoning rules that maintain an healthy ecosystem where I can see over a dozen types of birds out the window at breakfast and many other healthy populations, than I'd be even slightly interested to see densepack developments reducing my rates (I can find densepack & lower rates elsewhere, and if I wanted it, I'd have gone there)
TulliusCicero 5y ago
> If so, good for you, I wouldn't want to impose a garden or a parking spot on you. By the same token, calling these out as if they could possibly not be useful, simply because you do not think them useful, is at best, a fallacy. This is grossly out of touch with how most of these features end up existing. Most of the time, there's a minimum setback for the front yard, minimum parking, etc. specified by local zoning ordinances. This isn't bottom-up market-driven demand, it's top-down requirements specified by the local government for that area. So they are, in fact, imposed on whoever wants to live there.
- toss1 5y ago
  >>This is grossly out of touch with how most of these features end up existing ... this isn't bottom-up market-driven demand, it's top-down requirements specified by the local government for that area. Wrong. Of course it is always implemented by a local govt, but it is very much a result of demand. I very well understand how such regs end up existing, and changing. It is very much related to demand. People are generally against zoning until they realize what it is like to live without zoning, and then it is DEMANDED by the people, and of course implemented by the govt. I've lived in a locale where zoning was first brought in, then developers managed to build a coalition against it and it was abolished, then people realized that that was shi*y, and now it is zoned again. I've also seen and helped organize opposition to new development that would trash both neighborhoods and wetlands and endangered species habitat - when 100 neighbors come out to oppose the proposed variance, that is not some govt imposing it, it is the residents supporting their own zoning. It may be different in larger cities with heavier corporate development influence, but I doubt it, since e.g., I'm sure there are plenty of developers who'd love to develop in San Francisco, but all I hear about is NIMBY opposition to changing neighborhood zoning holding it back. Guess what? That's not some top-down govt, it's locals supporting their own zoning. What is out of touch is your comment inaccurately characterizing it as some faceless govt imposition.

by toss1 5y ago

KptMarchewa 5y ago

You can enjoy active outdoors without wasting space on concrete car desert. It's called "parks".

toss1 5y ago
Lawns and gardens are not concrete (at least not mine). Also,kind of hard to grow your lunch greens in a public park. Not much solitude there either. Nothing says that you need to even need to have concrete/asphalt driveways & parking; gravel drives can be quite nice.

magikaram 5y ago

It's been well documented that the large set back front yards and loads of anti-pedestrian designed neighborhoods and towns have largely been the cause for issues relating to poor public transportation, heat island effects, and less affordable housing. You can have nice gardens, double parking spots & a garage without the same designed towns and neighborhoods. Most often is done by limiting street parking, narrower streets, and using the rear-entrance drives and lots as done in many cities. Those designs also enable more pedestrian friendliness vs. the suburban sprawl that is effectively carpeting the U.S. and Canada since the 40's.

toss1 5y ago
>>heat island effects are not caused by yards and vegetation, but by expanses of dark asphalt and dark roofs. More vegetation vs roads/lots, and roof area is the cure, not the cause. >>Most often is done by limiting street parking, narrower streets, and using the rear-entrance drives and lots as done in many cities. YES, limiting on-street parking is huge.
- citrin_ru 5y ago
  If there are trees on both sides of a residential street it will not be a heat island even with on-street parking. But it seems to me many Americans don’t like trees and prefer open spaces (which inevitably work as heat islands).

ricardobeat 5y ago

I didn’t say they are useless or not enjoyable (except for front lawns which are, in fact, useless). And no I don’t live in an apartment, or would like to, though some people do. It’s just not really necessary for every single house to have these amenities. You can have parks, public parking, and a decent sized backyard in a townhouse / attached buildings. The space gained can then be used to sustain actual life in the neighborhood such as stores, restaurants, schools, libraries and small businesses. Once you have this, you don’t need two cars, or to drive everywhere, you don’t need a large private garden to enjoy the outdoors. Of course I’d love to live in a huge house surrounded by green. But it’s not a sustainable model for urban development.

neilparikh 5y ago

> I don't know about you, but I actively use and enjoy every one of those things. That's fine, as long as you pay the costs associated with those things. However, in most cities suburbs are revenue negative, and subsidized by the dense downtown areas (that don't have these). > I wouldn't want to impose a garden or a parking spot on you. The entire problem is that this is exactly what is done though. Zoning forces a very specific type of housing in most of the city (single family house with large lot size, garage, driveway and backyard), even for those who would be okay with or prefer something else.

toss1 5y ago
>>Zoning forces a very specific type of housing in most of the city (single family house with large lot size, garage, driveway and backyard), even for those who would be okay with or prefer something else. Are you conflating city and suburbs here? While this is obviously dependent on each city/town which has their own zoning rules, most of the locales with which I'm familiar have quite the dense-pack throughout the city, and the suburbs are out in separate towns. >>However, in most cities suburbs are revenue negative. Again, if the suburbs are separate towns, I don't see how this affects the city budget. If the suburbs are within the city and on the same budget, I'd look at the balance of costs and revenue, and if a particular zoning district is substantially more costly, i.e., being subsidized, then it seems a rate adjustment for that zoning type would be in order... As it is, for where I live, the town is essentially all rural/residential, with 2-acre minimums (some exceptions), 35mi from the major city, and I can say that yes, we REALLY do pay for those associated things - one of the highest tax rates in the state, and increased ~50% since moving in 15 years ago. Yes, we occasionally grumble, but I am much more happy to pay for the zoning rules that maintain an healthy ecosystem where I can see over a dozen types of birds out the window at breakfast and many other healthy populations, than I'd be even slightly interested to see densepack developments reducing my rates (I can find densepack & lower rates elsewhere, and if I wanted it, I'd have gone there)

TulliusCicero 5y ago

> If so, good for you, I wouldn't want to impose a garden or a parking spot on you. By the same token, calling these out as if they could possibly not be useful, simply because you do not think them useful, is at best, a fallacy. This is grossly out of touch with how most of these features end up existing. Most of the time, there's a minimum setback for the front yard, minimum parking, etc. specified by local zoning ordinances. This isn't bottom-up market-driven demand, it's top-down requirements specified by the local government for that area. So they are, in fact, imposed on whoever wants to live there.

toss1 5y ago
>>This is grossly out of touch with how most of these features end up existing ... this isn't bottom-up market-driven demand, it's top-down requirements specified by the local government for that area. Wrong. Of course it is always implemented by a local govt, but it is very much a result of demand. I very well understand how such regs end up existing, and changing. It is very much related to demand. People are generally against zoning until they realize what it is like to live without zoning, and then it is DEMANDED by the people, and of course implemented by the govt. I've lived in a locale where zoning was first brought in, then developers managed to build a coalition against it and it was abolished, then people realized that that was shi*y, and now it is zoned again. I've also seen and helped organize opposition to new development that would trash both neighborhoods and wetlands and endangered species habitat - when 100 neighbors come out to oppose the proposed variance, that is not some govt imposing it, it is the residents supporting their own zoning. It may be different in larger cities with heavier corporate development influence, but I doubt it, since e.g., I'm sure there are plenty of developers who'd love to develop in San Francisco, but all I hear about is NIMBY opposition to changing neighborhood zoning holding it back. Guess what? That's not some top-down govt, it's locals supporting their own zoning. What is out of touch is your comment inaccurately characterizing it as some faceless govt imposition.